I've hung my overcoat at the crossroads of media technology and social change for the last 20 years as a journalist, author, and consultant. That includes a book - CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World (Wiley) which chronicles the rise of online social activism - and bylines at The New York Times, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, techPresident.com, Social Edge, Industry Standard, Inside, Worth and Contribute magazines, among many other publications. I co-founded three companies, including the pioneering '90s protoblog @NY and CauseWired, my consulting firm currently advising clients on the social commons. In my spare time, I'm an adjunct instructor of social media and philanthropy at New York University.

How Should A Social Entrepreneur Respond to the NRA After #Newtown?

The public meltdown of the National Rifle Association in the aftermath of the heinous massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut has spurred activists, commentators and political organizers to action and outrage. From across the political spectrum, the reaction to NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s angry call for more guns in schools – indeed, guns as the solution to many of society’s problems – has been shock and denunciation, especially given the NRA’s seeming lack of sensitivity following the murder of 20 first-graders with a semiautomatic AR-15 Bushmaster weapon. But there’s one response lacking, and one that I’m certain a really smart social entrepreneur could provide.

Competition.

For decades, the NRA has maintained near monopoly status as the nation’s premiere gun safety organization – even after its controversial entry into publicly lobbying against gun control legislation in the 1970s, it still maintained training relationships with police departments and youth groups, including the Boy Scouts of America. Millions of Scouts have received NRA junior marksman cards (I’m one), and millions of Americans have learned to safely use firearms thanks to NRA-certified instructors. Indeed, the Scouts and the NRA celebrated a century of gun safety training in 2010 – even as the NRA continued its opposition to tougher gun laws aimed at keeping public spaces safer.

In terms of gun safety and shooting training, the NRA is pretty much the only game in town. And in many respects, it does a good job in mandating the kinds of national standards for safety that it ironically opposes on the legislative front. But its reaction to the Newtown murders and the groundswell of public opinion toward stronger gun legislation and firearms safety has introduced one factor into a formerly frozen market for those services – and its the kind of factor that usually awakens the entrepreneurial spirit in American markets:

Disruption.

When a brand is as publicly damaged as the NRA’s currently is, it’s open to challenge – and improvement. Peeling away the gun safety portion of what the NRA does and making a persuasive case for a more mainstream and ethical approach to firearms training seems like a real opportunity for a team of social entrepreneurs. For one thing, the market is huge. Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property, reported a Gallup survey last year. Further, the NRA itself brags about its “network of more than 65,000 instructors, more than 3,800 coaches, and more than 1,700 training counselors.” Surely, many of them might be ready for a change, especially after Newtown. And then there’s the NRA membership: more than four million dues-paying members, some percentage of whom would almost certainly be open to a better deal with a new organization that didn’t come with the NRA’s growing air of disrepute. All of this adds up to another factor that attracts social entrepreneurs:

Opportunity.

That’s because social entrepreneurs aren’t interested in a single bottom line. There’s a financial opportunity here, to be sure. A major dues-supported and fee-for-service organization is clearly possible. But the opportunity to challenge the NRA’s hegemony may carry greater societal impact. The NRA has clearly been insulated by the portion of unadulterated good it does: few would argue that training Americans to use guns safely in a society that prizes its constitutional right to carry firearms for legitimate purposes (including sport and hunting) is vitally important work.

But how many organizations feel less comfortable partnering with an organization that opposes a ban of assault weapons, an organization whose leadership responded callously to the mass murder of schoolchildren in their classroom? Do police departments feel good about this partnership? Does the Boy Scouts of America and its network of local councils? Which brings us to a final factor that should attract the attention of ambitious social entrepreneurs looking to make a different after Newtown:

Funding.

Let’s ask a “what if” question. What if there were a very prominent billionaire who opposed the NRA’s actions in public policy? What if that billionaire – a man with a strong history of informed philanthropic investment – declared his intention to change the landscape on gun safety and firearms policy? What if that billionaire also happened to be the boss of the nation’s largest police force, a law enforcement organization that necessarily partners with the NRA for safety certification? Oh, and what if that billionaire was himself a wildly successful entrepreneur who knew first-hand the power of market economics on social change?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Has anyone noticed that there are the “Gun-free zones” that our Politicians work in which feature metal detectors and armed guards at every entrance and on every floor? Then there are the (feel-good) “Gun-free Zones” that our school children, teachers and insane criminals work and play in. Seem reasonable to you? I have decided to be Heard on this issue in the Loudest way I can manage; With my check book! The NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, National Association for Gun Rights and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, all received my early renewals and/or contributions this week. Also: I VOTE!!

As far as Connecticut is concerned: Their Gun Control laws worked! The shooter was not able to legally buy the guns he wanted. He had to resort to killing and stealing to get them. This along with: Effectively stopping any law-abiding person on site from even being able to attempt to help those poor defenseless children with a legal concealed carry weapon in a (feel-good) Gun-free zone! I firmly believe that we have representatives with blood on their hands because of the way they vote for misguided gun control laws and gun-free zones. Shame on you all!!

Make No Mistake: Being trapped in a Feel-Good “Gun-free Zone” is what got some, if not many, of these children and teachers murdered! (Same for Aurora Colorado theater) These are the type of gun-free zones that are foist on an ill informed public, by clue-less gun-control Politicians whom work in real gun-free zones, with metal detectors and armed guards at the ready. There are No Laws that would have, or could have, prevented this Person from doing what he did! Criminals Do Not follow the Laws!! This person showed that he was willing to kill to get his hands on Guns. As has often been the case: Our Feel-Good Gun Laws only served to “Prevent” any Law Abiding Citizen, from possibly being able to render aid in the form of an Armed Response. The Only type of Aid that would have had any chance of being effective in this situation.

A large percentage of gun owners are NRA member not just for the gun advocacy that is provides, but also the socio-political stance that it represents. That is evident by the politicians who tout their “NRA political rating.” the NRA is to guns like the Civil War was to States Rights… The NRA is not just for gun enthusiasts, but for people with similar political ethos. This is why NRA members also hold membership in other common groups outside of hunting and shooting. Myself a gun owner but not an NRA member, may join a Bloomberg backed alternative, but the majority of gun owners, and especially assault weapon owners, would have nothing to do with it. There is no question that the time has come to marginalize the NRA, and I think that will be accomplished at the voting booth. Politicians will distance themselves from the group. What is needed is a non-partisan organization that can be an alternative to the NRA. Even more important than the NRA are the gun retailers and their philosophies. Take a set into a gun shop and the average IQ level drops by half.

8,000 new members per day, since the shootings, lets say two weeks that 112,000 new members, 4.3 million to 4.4 million in two weeks, now what was it you said about the NRA being tarnished, I would say by the time congress comes back from the break, it will be 4.5 million and by may or june 5 million! Now think about this, the numbers grew befor LaPierre spoke, and the event alone was enough to cause a second thought about guns yet 4,000 new gun permits in Conn. showed that this article is beyond denial! if 8,000 new members a day since the shootings and it was tragic, and 4,000 new request for permits, the Confrence held by LaPierre will send membership to 4.5 by january and at least 5 million by June showing that Americans want the truth!!! not the Political language!!! Iam thinking 5 million members by this summer, because Americans do not want moderates when it comes to the 2nd amendment

Mr. LaPierre was obviously subdued in expressing the NRA’s stance, presumably out of respect to the slaughtered innocents. A major flaw in his suggestion for armed guards at schools is that there simply wouldn’t be enough to guard all possible entrances. I would like to suggest a program for school security I believe to be more in line with the true goals of the NRA, modeled after the age-old and highly successful “school crossing guard” program, in which elementary school children don a vest or shoulder belt and assist their classmates in crossing the street. The “School Security Guard” would equip a student in each classroom with a high-powered semiautomatic rifle and empower that student to maintain a watch during the school day. Of course some training would be required, but if there’s anything the past several decades of experience in sub-Saharan Africa has taught us, it’s that children can be trained to effectively handle weapons. This program would require little expenditure of taxpayer dollars, minimize the expansion of government involvement in our school system (only indirectly an NRA goal), and would be a huge economic boost to firearms and ammunition manufacturers (very clearly an NRA goal), thereby creating jobs. Of course, a tax exemption would be offered to those manufacturers for their assistance in helping to develop the program. The student guards would experience a boost in self-esteem. Everybody wins.